In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
[Contrary to most here I would support background checks on all sales provided no records kept on the gun and that the individual has the option of doing the check himself for a nominal fee. We can currently do that in Illinois for private sales at gun shows. Seems to me to be a good option]
Slumlord I think you may be on shakey ground suggesting anything that originates from Ilinois. Your states record on violent crime speaks for itself!
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
I don't know why Wayne had such a problem with the question. I would have made it simple for the Senator.
Should have replied NRA supports background checks for all sales going through a licensed dealer. Private sales are regulated by the states. We support the States that want to allow private sales and we also support the States that want to regulate them.
That would have been a very good answer. Wayne is not a good communicator. THe NRA needs a better spokesperson.
The gun grabbers are arguing that the NRA is being unreasonable and it is "no big deal" because the average nic checks are averaging only a few minutes. Do they understand that private parties will need to find a dealer to complete the transaction? Or do they think anyone can just pick up the phone and run a background check whenever they want?
quote:Originally posted by Buck E
[Contrary to most here I would support background checks on all sales provided no records kept on the gun and that the individual has the option of doing the check himself for a nominal fee. We can currently do that in Illinois for private sales at gun shows. Seems to me to be a good option]
Slumlord I think you may be on shakey ground suggesting anything that originates from Ilinois. Your states record on violent crime speaks for itself!
I have recently been enlightened on Illinois gun laws.
What would be the point in keeping records on guns when you keep records on gun OWNERS, FOID.
If you posses a gun you had better have your papers in order.
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]
quote: Do they understand that private parties will need to find a dealer to complete the transaction? Or do they think anyone can just pick up the phone and run a background check whenever they want?
Just a fact check . Here in CT, State approval is required for all private handgun transfers with paperwork including the SN submitted to the State and the local police of both buyer & seller. Individual Calls the State police, they run a NICS and give you a release number. All at no charge. No dealer involvement
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]
Words are better than feet, I guess.
Please clarify your position.
1. Should convicted felons be permitted to purchase firearms after they have served their time?
2. If they are barred, how are they to be identified to firearms sellers?
3. If they are barred and a transaction occurs, is the crime committed by the seller, the buyer, or both?
4. Absent background checks, and if the seller is guilty of a crime for the transaction, how can that seller ensure that the buyer is not an ex-felon?
From your response, it seems that you are against background checks for the law abiding, but still wish it to be illegal for ex-cons to purchase firearms.
If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. If I have not misunderstood you, I am curious as to how you wish to implement your Utopian plans.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Background checks in my opinion only stop felons from by from dealers. They will get guns if they want them. By definition they do not abide by the law, so no law will stop them.
quote:Originally posted by chollagardens
quote:Mr. Perfect posted;
quote:
Originally posted by chollagardens
quote:NICS
Stops felons ect from buying firearms = good
Can you give me directions to the fantasy world you live in? I google mapped it, but it couldn't find the address.
There are very few absolutes. It is a tool, it is effective to a certain point. If a idea dosn't work it will die. If it does then it will take on a life of it's own. Sorry my idea didn't apeal to you.
I'm open to hear a way to solve both anti gun tyranny and people killing little kids etal.
Look at my earlier post. But assuming you are unwilling/incapable:
Either keep the dangerous locked up or make them dead. It's quite simple really.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]
Words are better than feet, I guess.
Please clarify your position.
1. Should convicted felons be permitted to purchase firearms after they have served their time?
2. If they are barred, how are they to be identified to firearms sellers?
3. If they are barred and a transaction occurs, is the crime committed by the seller, the buyer, or both?
4. Absent background checks, and if the seller is guilty of a crime for the transaction, how can that seller ensure that the buyer is not an ex-felon?
From your response, it seems that you are against background checks for the law abiding, but still wish it to be illegal for ex-cons to purchase firearms.
If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. If I have not misunderstood you, I am curious as to how you wish to implement your Utopian plans.
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
It seems to me NICS checks have become widely accepted. What's next 20+ years from now? "Assault weapon" possession being completely illegal/a felony becoming widely accepted also? Then handguns, then long guns until we're down to a sling shot and stones?
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
It seems to me NICS checks have become widely accepted. What's next 20+ years from now? "Assault weapon" possession being completely illegal/a felony becoming widely accepted also? Then handguns, then long guns until we're down to a sling shot and stones?
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Good plan going with the duck and run approach.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.
No, your desire to remain anonymous in all possible transactions has been rendered useless.
It will be hard to preserve the exemption for personal sales without a formal background check, but I think it may be done.
In return, I would be looking to permanently exempt all firearms now over 100 years old.
I don't understand the concept of a desire being rendered useless. Obsolete in the eyes of many, perhaps, but not useless. Knowledge is still power, and a paper trail creates the means to knowledge.
That said, if Scalia can cite, in a SCOTUS decision, governmental powers of infringement upon a right that is specifically not to be infringed, the freedom of the individual to exercise the underlying right has been substantially lost.
I also don't understand the concept of using the term 'exemption' when discussing background checks for private sales. Currently a significant number of states do not require a background check for private sales. That these states have not gone the extra mile and forced their citizens to submit to a Federal policy beyond the legitimate reach of the Federal Government is not an exemption. It is simply a continuation of an historic norm.
Lastly, I also cannot understand the mindset that would trade the freedoms of others for an individual want. It is that short-sighted and self-centered mentality that has allowed for the re-definition of the 2nd Amendment over the past 80 years.
If anyone wishes to live in a State where universal background checks are mandated, they are free to choose any number of states that have already imposed that condition. This, apparently, is not good enough for them, however. Constitutional issues aside, what possible justification is there to impose one's restrictive beliefs on the entire citizenry when the opportunity to live under them already exists?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Agreed 100%. 1910 would be a good place to start:
No background checks.
No restrictions on felons.
No restrictions on full-auto weaponry.
Order a 1921A1 on-line and have it shipped to a post office box.
Your're coming around, Jim. Very good to see.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
You are still refusing to accept the point of limitation vs infringement. The framers used the term "abridged" in the first amendment, you reckon they changed the wording to infringe just for style's sake ? Until the basic and proper usage of the language terms involved is appreciated, there is not much use in trying to convince others of something that does not exist.
Define your terms again?
In common usage, and in the context of Amendments 2 and 1, infringe is to encroach and abridge is to deny. This suggests that the framers made a much stronger statement in the 2nd than in the first.
Please point to something, a contemporaneous definition, for example, that would suggest that the common usage of these words has changed over time and that in 1791 the prohibition upon abridgment was actually a stronger statement than the prohibition upon infringement.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
It seems to me NICS checks have become widely accepted. What's next 20+ years from now? "Assault weapon" possession being completely illegal/a felony becoming widely accepted also? Then handguns, then long guns until we're down to a sling shot and stones?
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.
I agree with the last sentence even though the sentences above it are true. [xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Agreed 100%. 1910 would be a good place to start:
No background checks.
No restrictions on felons.
No restrictions on full-auto weaponry.
Order a 1921A1 on-line and have it shipped to a post office box.
Your're coming around, Jim. Very good to see.
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
It is only your definition and usage that has changed, and is not in accordance with the standard usage, Don. The denotations and connotations have not changed over time.
Limitations are still limitations, and infringements are still infringements, but the terms are not interchangeable.
That is the point. Infringements are, in a categorical sense, a subset of limitations. Infringement is by it's nature and usage an improper limitation. No one says, for example,in law or common usage, " My farm is infringed by the property line." You could say, "My farm is limited by, My farm is bounded by, My farm is bordered by," or several other phrases, and be perfectly understood. try that with infringed and it simply does not ring true, it is clumsy, it just doesn't fit what you are trying to communicate.
Not all limitations are infringements, although all infringements are limitations.
All infringements are improper, but not so with all limitations.
Compare, for example, with the concept of abridgments.
Dictionaries are abridged, with no hint of impropriety, for example.
But no lessening or abridgment of the "full and perfect" ( a common term and concept when discussing such things) freedom of religion is allowable under the BOR.
Does that mean, then, that any conceivable practice of "religion" is protected under the BOR, even though the freedom of practice may not be abridged ?
Nope, definitely not.
But that is a different discussion.
There is no suggestion that 'limitation' and 'infringement' are in any way interchangeable. I also do not see how you can suggest that infringements are any sort of subset of limitations.
To infringe could be considered the act of of exceeding a limitation, a suppose.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the limitation is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The creation of the concept that an infringement is only an improper limitation builds into the 2nd Amendment an infinite number of proper limitations. Justice Scalia is on board with the viewpoint, though it seems that in this context the 2nd Amendment is, as originally suggested, meaningless as a check upon governments.
If we are to believe that there is substance in the Constitution, this simply cannot be the case.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I know this is a discussion on background checks at gun shows, but as one that believes the Constitution means what it says:
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed [no object]: I wouldn't infringe on his privacy
This includes the States as well.
If the country feels a need to limit or control firearms then amend the constitution. Ignoring it should not be an option.
Unless this is done then IMHO ALL gun laws, including background checks, are unconstitutional.
No background checks. Period.
As for as Criminals getting guns: If you remove a persons right to protect themselves then you effectively remove thier citizenship. Thats not Constitutional. At some point bad people of all sorts need to be restircted but that doesnt mean if you go to jail you should automatically loose your rights.
Rememeber we live in a FREE Country. There are going to be some dangers in doing so. The dangers are much higher when protected by the Gov. Just ask the Germans in WWII time.
What next: no dirving on Pikes Peak since we might accidentally drive off the side?
"The neighbor's fence infringes my property due to its lean across the boundary" is a proper corollary to how "the government infringes my right to keep and bear arms". The boundary set for our government is the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Anything the government does across that boundary is an infringement.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.
You are correct. The sale would not be a violation, but the purchase by a prohibited person would be. The point of the 'paper trail' is to trace weapons found to be used in a crime. This would give LE a 'lead' to work. It would start at the manufacture and end with the original purchaser of the firearm from a dealer, not further. This would give LE a place to start in their investigation.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.
You are correct. The sale would not be a violation, but the purchase by a prohibited person would be. The point of the 'paper trail' is to trace weapons found to be used in a crime. This would give LE a 'lead' to work. It would start at the manufacture and end with the original purchaser of the firearm from a dealer, not further. This would give LE a place to start in their investigation.
While I am not a fan of any paper trail, Jim, this approach is a big step in the right direction. It reduces the burden on the individual, and places responsibility only upon those that have done or do wrong. It also throws a bone to those that think it important for Government to know where firearms may be.
(I am thinking, however, that the 'honor system for ex-cons' may not be the easiest concept to sell to the general public.)[:)]
The paper trail, while giving law enforcement a starting point after the fact obviously does not stem violence, but, as you and I and thousands of others already understand, neither does the current system of background checks, nor would they if expanded to every transfer.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Ok now I am confused. What is being discussed is what IS now not WOULD be.
The NICS does not create a paper trail. The ATF 4473 would be the paper trail.
The paper trail could only be accomplished by requiring all firearm sales or transfers be done thru an FFL. This may work for new weapons but almost worthless for older weapons. When an FFL goes out of business they are required to send all records to the NTC.
"When an FFL discontinues business, the FFL must send their firearms transactions records to the National Tracing Center (NTC). The NTC receives an average of 1.2 million out-of-business records per month and is the only repository for these records within the United States."
A government black hole! And a 10 Amendment violation.
I am amazed at what is missing from the discussion "MINORITIES AND SINGLE MOMS HARDEST HIT" by increasing gun control.(LOL)
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There is no suggestion that 'limitation' and 'infringement' are in any way interchangeable. I also do not see how you can suggest that infringements are any sort of subset of limitations.
Easy. Try a Venn diagram, a common logical tool.
To infringe could be considered the act of of exceeding a limitation, a suppose.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the limitation is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The creation of the concept that an infringement is only an improper limitation builds into the 2nd Amendment an infinite number of proper limitations. Justice Scalia is on board with the viewpoint, though it seems that in this context the 2nd Amendment is, as originally suggested, meaningless as a check upon governments.
If we are to believe that there is substance in the Constitution, this simply cannot be the case.
No offense intended, but this would only be the case for the uninformed. There is ample thought in both natural law, and God's law, to address the issue. Should disagreements arise about what limitations are proper, there is both legislative and judicial means to resolve the issue. There is no right that is absolute under every circumstance, and no such amendment. If one tries to live without such conventions and understanding, you end up with confusion.
As is common in such discussions, and even Jefferson predicted such devolution of political thought.
If one chooses a logical tool, but starts with a false assumption as you are doing, the end result remains in error, regardless of how logical the path.
As to the latter, it is curious that you suggest the presentation of an uniformed position and then confirm that it is correct. Legislative and judicial means to resolve an issue, when it is patently obvious that neither the legislative or judicial process in play today in this country have any respect for, nor do they follow Natural Law or God's Law.
One only need read Scalia's tortured path towards legitimacy in Heller to see this. This expansion of Government Power was legimized through court precedent, in addition to 'common usage' and 'long-standing prohibitioins' absent any Constitutional basis.
In effect, virtually unlimited power of proper limitation. The limits on government are specific regarding the D.C. law, 'But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home'. as an example. The powers created are not limited, however, and are stated to include licensing of individuals, registration of firearms and regulations as to the types of firearms allowed.
Heller tells us that 'absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home' is unconstitutional. This, I guess would be one of your 'improper limitations' by government, though actually the infringement by government of a limit the Constitution places upon Government. Heller also tells us that the legislative and judicial process can be used to prohibit persons from owning firearms and to prohibit types of firearms from all persons, as you have also stated.
Granted, I have not played with sets and subsets since grammar school, but I am fairly confident that when one removes a sub-set of 1 from an infinite set, the original set remains infinite.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I don't see how background checks on private sales can be effectively enforced without registration of all weapons. As of the effective date of such a law, guns sold through dealers from that point would have a paper trail for tracking them. Without registration the gun I bought from a dealer in 1984 and sold a few years later has probably been sold numerous times by now through private sales and has no documentation to tie it to its current owner. It could continue to be sold without background checks until someone was caught in the act because there is no documentation to follow it.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
If one chooses a logical tool, but starts with a false assumption as you are doing, the end result remains in error, regardless of how logical the path.
You have presented no evidence that the one is not a subset of the other, and apparently refuse to use the simplest of logical tools to evaluate your claim, Don. There is nothing else I can add, I guess.
As to the latter, it is curious that you suggest the presentation of an uniformed position and then confirm that it is correct.
You will need to be a bit clearer there in what you are saying.
Legislative and judicial means to resolve an issue, when it is patently obvious that neither the legislative or judicial process in play today in this country have any respect for, nor do they follow Natural Law or God's Law.
But that is a choice, not a logical necessity. Simply because a process can be misused in no way demonstrates that the process cannot be well used. Not everything is a failure, no matter how you feel about it.
One only need read Scalia's tortured path towards legitimacy in Heller to see this. This expansion of Government Power was legimized through court precedent, in addition to 'common usage' and 'long-standing prohibitioins' absent any Constitutional basis.
You have certainly convinced yourself, apparently.
In effect, virtually unlimited power of proper limitation.
I understand what you are saying, but then you are ignoring that proper limitation may not be proper if "unlimited". You are playing fast and loose with the terms, whether intentionally or not. But that does not change the fact that limitations are present in every amendment, not just the ones you feel like recognizing.
The limits on government are specific regarding the D.C. law, 'But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home'. as an example. The powers created are not limited, however, and are stated to include licensing of individuals, registration of firearms and regulations as to the types of firearms allowed.
I did not present the DC law as perfect,but you surely must recognize that DC is a special jurisdictional case.
Heller tells us that 'absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home' is unconstitutional. This, I guess would be one of your 'improper limitations' by government, though actually the infringement by government of a limit the Constitution places upon Government.
To hold that there is an absolute prohibition for all persons in all circumstances in all places and times would certainly be improper limitation, and hence, infringement.
To hold that slaves cannot possess weapons would be the same idea.
To hold that the criminally insane cannot possess arms, however, would not.
I would also limit the possession of firearms among those incarcerated, as well.
I would be real tempted to limit possession to citizens, however, or at least prohibit possession by illegal aliens.
And, nope, I see no rationale for the possession of CBW by individuals, either.
Heller also tells us that the legislative and judicial process can be used to prohibit persons from owning firearms and to prohibit types of firearms from all persons, as you have also stated.
As above.
Granted, I have not played with sets and subsets since grammar school, but I am fairly confident that when one removes a sub-set of 1 from an infinite set, the original set remains infinite.
Not quite sure the importance of that to this discussion, but Venn diagrams are simple and may be googled for further information.
It is as I had assumed. You believe government has the wisdom and ability to properly determine the application of a right absent Constitutional guidance. You accept that common usage, what makes sense, etc. Laws are fleeting, but the law should not be.
You can cease your simple Venn Diagram discussion. I am familiar with the concept and with application. If you seriously believe that a Venn Diagram can be used to logically present the relationship between limitation and infringement, you apparently lack such understanding.
As previously noted, as with any logic tool, you have start with understanding the subject. You believe I do not, I believe you do not. Our circles do not intersect.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
The 'Heller' case findings were wrong. 'WE' don't need a law degree or a black robe to understand either the letter or the spirit of the Bill of Rights. "We the people" are MORE capable than ANY one in government to interrupt the 'law'. There is a very obvious 'conflict of interest' when we allow the government to tell us 'what the law means'!!!![xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'Heller' case findings were wrong. 'WE' don't need a law degree or a black robe to understand either the letter or the spirit of the Bill of Rights. "We the people" are MORE capable than ANY one in government to interrupt the 'law'. There is a very obvious 'conflict of interest' when we allow the government to tell us 'what the law means'!!!![xx(]
The festering wound that is our government is leagues ahead of the ordinary citizens, insofar as "interrupting" the law is concerned.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'Heller' case findings were wrong. 'WE' don't need a law degree or a black robe to understand either the letter or the spirit of the Bill of Rights. "We the people" are MORE capable than ANY one in government to interrupt the 'law'. There is a very obvious 'conflict of interest' when we allow the government to tell us 'what the law means'!!!![xx(]
The festering wound that is our government is leagues ahead of the ordinary citizens, insofar as "interrupting" the law is concerned.
Most of us are 'law abiding' citizens, BUT we MUST start thinking like Rosa Parks and refuse to go to the back of the bus. We MUST do this TOGETHER or it is useless. That is why I try to get those on ALL sides of this issue to stop the in-fighting and realize we must ALL agree no matter how we think it 'should be' it has gone way to far NOW and we must ALL 'draw a line in the sand' and push back collectively or 'resistance is futile'!!!!!!!!!!![V][xx(]
Comments
Slumlord I think you may be on shakey ground suggesting anything that originates from Ilinois. Your states record on violent crime speaks for itself!
I don't know why Wayne had such a problem with the question. I would have made it simple for the Senator.
Should have replied NRA supports background checks for all sales going through a licensed dealer. Private sales are regulated by the states. We support the States that want to allow private sales and we also support the States that want to regulate them.
That would have been a very good answer. Wayne is not a good communicator. THe NRA needs a better spokesperson.
[Contrary to most here I would support background checks on all sales provided no records kept on the gun and that the individual has the option of doing the check himself for a nominal fee. We can currently do that in Illinois for private sales at gun shows. Seems to me to be a good option]
Slumlord I think you may be on shakey ground suggesting anything that originates from Ilinois. Your states record on violent crime speaks for itself!
I have recently been enlightened on Illinois gun laws.
What would be the point in keeping records on guns when you keep records on gun OWNERS, FOID.
If you posses a gun you had better have your papers in order.
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Brad Steele
I also object to any firearm registration of any kind, be it handgun, semi auto or full auto.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]
Just a fact check . Here in CT, State approval is required for all private handgun transfers with paperwork including the SN submitted to the State and the local police of both buyer & seller. Individual Calls the State police, they run a NICS and give you a release number. All at no charge. No dealer involvement
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]
Words are better than feet, I guess.
Please clarify your position.
1. Should convicted felons be permitted to purchase firearms after they have served their time?
2. If they are barred, how are they to be identified to firearms sellers?
3. If they are barred and a transaction occurs, is the crime committed by the seller, the buyer, or both?
4. Absent background checks, and if the seller is guilty of a crime for the transaction, how can that seller ensure that the buyer is not an ex-felon?
From your response, it seems that you are against background checks for the law abiding, but still wish it to be illegal for ex-cons to purchase firearms.
If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. If I have not misunderstood you, I am curious as to how you wish to implement your Utopian plans.
Brad Steele
quote:Mr. Perfect posted;
quote:
Originally posted by chollagardens
quote:NICS
Stops felons ect from buying firearms = good
Can you give me directions to the fantasy world you live in? I google mapped it, but it couldn't find the address.
There are very few absolutes. It is a tool, it is effective to a certain point. If a idea dosn't work it will die. If it does then it will take on a life of it's own. Sorry my idea didn't apeal to you.
I'm open to hear a way to solve both anti gun tyranny and people killing little kids etal.
Look at my earlier post. But assuming you are unwilling/incapable:
Either keep the dangerous locked up or make them dead. It's quite simple really.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!! [V]
I have been a licenced dealer for 20+ years and in LE for 30+ years have not seen any proof that background checks have accomplished any good what so ever!!![:(!]
Good to hear, Jim.
Finally, an ex-LEO who agrees that released felons should have full restoration of rights. Perhaps I have been too hasty in dismissing your protestations of reality.
While I will continue to disagree that there is anything reasonable or Constitutional in restricting full-auto and not semi-auto weapons, I will put that aside for now and accept something I had here-to-fore misunderstood about your position.
Putting words in mouth again.[}:)]
I was discussing background checks, felons![;)]
Words are better than feet, I guess.
Please clarify your position.
1. Should convicted felons be permitted to purchase firearms after they have served their time?
2. If they are barred, how are they to be identified to firearms sellers?
3. If they are barred and a transaction occurs, is the crime committed by the seller, the buyer, or both?
4. Absent background checks, and if the seller is guilty of a crime for the transaction, how can that seller ensure that the buyer is not an ex-felon?
From your response, it seems that you are against background checks for the law abiding, but still wish it to be illegal for ex-cons to purchase firearms.
If I have misunderstood you, please correct me. If I have not misunderstood you, I am curious as to how you wish to implement your Utopian plans.
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.
Brad Steele
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?
It seems to me NICS checks have become widely accepted. What's next 20+ years from now? "Assault weapon" possession being completely illegal/a felony becoming widely accepted also? Then handguns, then long guns until we're down to a sling shot and stones?
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Those convicted of 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to legally 'rearm'. But those convicted of 'property' crimes only should be allowed to be armed after they have completed their sentence. Some states have a time limit after their release before they are allowed to own weapons.
As for enforcement. When this BS started in 1968 you were required to sign a 4473 swearing you were not a convicted felon, drug user, and etc. If you were caught with a gun and it was found you lied on the 4473 you were suppose to be arrested and prosecuted! BUT THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!!![:(!] Back to enforcement of the laws on the books. The point is the background check serve no realistic purpose WHAT SO EVER!! [V] These 'checks' imply that you are 'guilty' until you prove you are not!!! We need to leave the responsible people alone and prosecute the criminals/victimizers!!![:(]
Slow down, Jim. I can hear you without the soapbox.
What is your current position?
A. Do you believe that we should set the clock back to 1968?
(No background checks, but all buyers must sign a contract/form confirming that they can legally purchase a firearm.)
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the dealer?
The dealer, then has zero responsibility, so long as he has this form. Does he need to maintain these forms for every gun he has ever sold?
Does this include private sales?
Where is this form sent, or is it simply for the protection of the seller?
What is actually accomplished other than the creation of a paper trail back to the last legitimate owner?
It seems to me that this arrangement only adds a fraud charge to a person arrested for a gun crime, and creates the same data base that is desired by those who want universal background checks.
Can you help with what the actual difference really is?
Or B: Are you advocating going back to before 1968 where the form did not exist?
Again, please correct me if I am wrong, but this is how I see your position:
You want ex-cons to be limited either temporarily or permanently, based upon the type of crime committed. While I don't agree, I understand.
Do you put the burden of compliance upon the ex-con?
Or, do you put the burden upon the rest of us by having to verify our legitimacy via documentation that provides a paper trail?
Some (myself included) would argue that the background check is an infringement of secondary importance to the paper trail.
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Good plan going with the duck and run approach.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.
No, your desire to remain anonymous in all possible transactions has been rendered useless.
It will be hard to preserve the exemption for personal sales without a formal background check, but I think it may be done.
In return, I would be looking to permanently exempt all firearms now over 100 years old.
I don't understand the concept of a desire being rendered useless. Obsolete in the eyes of many, perhaps, but not useless. Knowledge is still power, and a paper trail creates the means to knowledge.
That said, if Scalia can cite, in a SCOTUS decision, governmental powers of infringement upon a right that is specifically not to be infringed, the freedom of the individual to exercise the underlying right has been substantially lost.
I also don't understand the concept of using the term 'exemption' when discussing background checks for private sales. Currently a significant number of states do not require a background check for private sales. That these states have not gone the extra mile and forced their citizens to submit to a Federal policy beyond the legitimate reach of the Federal Government is not an exemption. It is simply a continuation of an historic norm.
Lastly, I also cannot understand the mindset that would trade the freedoms of others for an individual want. It is that short-sighted and self-centered mentality that has allowed for the re-definition of the 2nd Amendment over the past 80 years.
If anyone wishes to live in a State where universal background checks are mandated, they are free to choose any number of states that have already imposed that condition. This, apparently, is not good enough for them, however. Constitutional issues aside, what possible justification is there to impose one's restrictive beliefs on the entire citizenry when the opportunity to live under them already exists?
Brad Steele
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Agreed 100%. 1910 would be a good place to start:
No background checks.
No restrictions on felons.
No restrictions on full-auto weaponry.
Order a 1921A1 on-line and have it shipped to a post office box.
Your're coming around, Jim. Very good to see.
Brad Steele
You are still refusing to accept the point of limitation vs infringement. The framers used the term "abridged" in the first amendment, you reckon they changed the wording to infringe just for style's sake ? Until the basic and proper usage of the language terms involved is appreciated, there is not much use in trying to convince others of something that does not exist.
Define your terms again?
In common usage, and in the context of Amendments 2 and 1, infringe is to encroach and abridge is to deny. This suggests that the framers made a much stronger statement in the 2nd than in the first.
Please point to something, a contemporaneous definition, for example, that would suggest that the common usage of these words has changed over time and that in 1791 the prohibition upon abridgment was actually a stronger statement than the prohibition upon infringement.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
It seems to me NICS checks have become widely accepted. What's next 20+ years from now? "Assault weapon" possession being completely illegal/a felony becoming widely accepted also? Then handguns, then long guns until we're down to a sling shot and stones?
Maybe I misread but does the second ammendment say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after a background/NICS check"?
Read the Heller Decision.
Scalia basically states that it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be denied. Governments have the power to mandate the registration of firearms, to mandate the licensing of individuals who wish to keep or bear firearms, and to establish regulations as to which types of firearms can be kept or borne.
So yes, currently the 2nd Amendment does state that a background check can be required.
The amendment has been rendered virtually meaningless.
I agree with the last sentence even though the sentences above it are true. [xx(]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No, we should set the clock back to about 1910 or even further!
What I am saying about the Ominous Crime Control Act of 1968 is they (the progressives) were using the same a old tired arguments they are using today and they keep using to push use further down the slippery slope. [:(] This 'act' was passed in the interest of 'controlling crime', which MANY thought to be their true agenda. But as we all know they, the progressives, will not stop until they disarm us completely!!! This not about 'gun control', it is about 'people control'!!![:(!]
Agreed 100%. 1910 would be a good place to start:
No background checks.
No restrictions on felons.
No restrictions on full-auto weaponry.
Order a 1921A1 on-line and have it shipped to a post office box.
Your're coming around, Jim. Very good to see.
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.
Brad Steele
It is only your definition and usage that has changed, and is not in accordance with the standard usage, Don. The denotations and connotations have not changed over time.
Limitations are still limitations, and infringements are still infringements, but the terms are not interchangeable.
That is the point. Infringements are, in a categorical sense, a subset of limitations. Infringement is by it's nature and usage an improper limitation. No one says, for example,in law or common usage, " My farm is infringed by the property line." You could say, "My farm is limited by, My farm is bounded by, My farm is bordered by," or several other phrases, and be perfectly understood. try that with infringed and it simply does not ring true, it is clumsy, it just doesn't fit what you are trying to communicate.
Not all limitations are infringements, although all infringements are limitations.
All infringements are improper, but not so with all limitations.
Compare, for example, with the concept of abridgments.
Dictionaries are abridged, with no hint of impropriety, for example.
But no lessening or abridgment of the "full and perfect" ( a common term and concept when discussing such things) freedom of religion is allowable under the BOR.
Does that mean, then, that any conceivable practice of "religion" is protected under the BOR, even though the freedom of practice may not be abridged ?
Nope, definitely not.
But that is a different discussion.
There is no suggestion that 'limitation' and 'infringement' are in any way interchangeable. I also do not see how you can suggest that infringements are any sort of subset of limitations.
To infringe could be considered the act of of exceeding a limitation, a suppose.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the limitation is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The creation of the concept that an infringement is only an improper limitation builds into the 2nd Amendment an infinite number of proper limitations. Justice Scalia is on board with the viewpoint, though it seems that in this context the 2nd Amendment is, as originally suggested, meaningless as a check upon governments.
If we are to believe that there is substance in the Constitution, this simply cannot be the case.
Brad Steele
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed [no object]: I wouldn't infringe on his privacy
This includes the States as well.
If the country feels a need to limit or control firearms then amend the constitution. Ignoring it should not be an option.
Unless this is done then IMHO ALL gun laws, including background checks, are unconstitutional.
As for as Criminals getting guns: If you remove a persons right to protect themselves then you effectively remove thier citizenship. Thats not Constitutional. At some point bad people of all sorts need to be restircted but that doesnt mean if you go to jail you should automatically loose your rights.
Rememeber we live in a FREE Country. There are going to be some dangers in doing so. The dangers are much higher when protected by the Gov. Just ask the Germans in WWII time.
What next: no dirving on Pikes Peak since we might accidentally drive off the side?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I am not coming around.[;)] This has been my position for about the past 20+ years. Now this is were we part company. If we could 'start over' I would say to purchase a true 'assault weapon (select fire) a background check, like we do for all purchases now, would be in order. I think dealers should keep records of whom they sell to, but not require any 'checks' on the buyers. I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!! Concealed carry should not be outlawed ANYWHERE! If you use a weapon to commit a crime you should be prosecuted, and you should not be allowed to CCW after your convection.
If you study the history of the anti-gun laws you will find their roots in the corrupt political machines of our large cities. They are still well rooted there. The reason they made laws restricting the right of self defense is because those who opposed the corruption were able to be armed the same as the corrupt machine. Like today, where the corrupt NATIONAL political machine is in power, they were able to control the opposition by allowing those who support them to be armed and those opposing them to be arrested for being armed. Thus ALL those involved at all levels of government are in violation of the Constitution and violating the oath to protect the Constitution.[:(!]
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.
You are correct. The sale would not be a violation, but the purchase by a prohibited person would be. The point of the 'paper trail' is to trace weapons found to be used in a crime. This would give LE a 'lead' to work. It would start at the manufacture and end with the original purchaser of the firearm from a dealer, not further. This would give LE a place to start in their investigation.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
One last(?) question, Jim.
You state emphatically 'I think those convicted of violent 'persons' crimes should not be allowed to 'rearm'!!!' yet object to background checks on anyone save for select-fire or full-auto weapons. You also support dealers being forced to maintain records of sales. I assume you do not extend this to private sales.
This suggests that if a person once convicted of a violent 'persons' crime purchases a firearm from a dealer, it is only that person who has breached the law. In essence, complete removal of active government control (which I obviously support), and the act of purchase is illegal, but the sale is not.
What is the point of the paper trail? It does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of those once violent, it just points to where the firearm used was released into the public.
You are correct. The sale would not be a violation, but the purchase by a prohibited person would be. The point of the 'paper trail' is to trace weapons found to be used in a crime. This would give LE a 'lead' to work. It would start at the manufacture and end with the original purchaser of the firearm from a dealer, not further. This would give LE a place to start in their investigation.
While I am not a fan of any paper trail, Jim, this approach is a big step in the right direction. It reduces the burden on the individual, and places responsibility only upon those that have done or do wrong. It also throws a bone to those that think it important for Government to know where firearms may be.
(I am thinking, however, that the 'honor system for ex-cons' may not be the easiest concept to sell to the general public.)[:)]
The paper trail, while giving law enforcement a starting point after the fact obviously does not stem violence, but, as you and I and thousands of others already understand, neither does the current system of background checks, nor would they if expanded to every transfer.
Brad Steele
The NICS does not create a paper trail. The ATF 4473 would be the paper trail.
The paper trail could only be accomplished by requiring all firearm sales or transfers be done thru an FFL. This may work for new weapons but almost worthless for older weapons. When an FFL goes out of business they are required to send all records to the NTC.
"When an FFL discontinues business, the FFL must send their firearms transactions records to the National Tracing Center (NTC). The NTC receives an average of 1.2 million out-of-business records per month and is the only repository for these records within the United States."
A government black hole! And a 10 Amendment violation.
I am amazed at what is missing from the discussion "MINORITIES AND SINGLE MOMS HARDEST HIT" by increasing gun control.(LOL)
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
There is no suggestion that 'limitation' and 'infringement' are in any way interchangeable. I also do not see how you can suggest that infringements are any sort of subset of limitations.
Easy. Try a Venn diagram, a common logical tool.
To infringe could be considered the act of of exceeding a limitation, a suppose.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the limitation is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The creation of the concept that an infringement is only an improper limitation builds into the 2nd Amendment an infinite number of proper limitations. Justice Scalia is on board with the viewpoint, though it seems that in this context the 2nd Amendment is, as originally suggested, meaningless as a check upon governments.
If we are to believe that there is substance in the Constitution, this simply cannot be the case.
No offense intended, but this would only be the case for the uninformed. There is ample thought in both natural law, and God's law, to address the issue. Should disagreements arise about what limitations are proper, there is both legislative and judicial means to resolve the issue. There is no right that is absolute under every circumstance, and no such amendment. If one tries to live without such conventions and understanding, you end up with confusion.
As is common in such discussions, and even Jefferson predicted such devolution of political thought.
If one chooses a logical tool, but starts with a false assumption as you are doing, the end result remains in error, regardless of how logical the path.
As to the latter, it is curious that you suggest the presentation of an uniformed position and then confirm that it is correct. Legislative and judicial means to resolve an issue, when it is patently obvious that neither the legislative or judicial process in play today in this country have any respect for, nor do they follow Natural Law or God's Law.
One only need read Scalia's tortured path towards legitimacy in Heller to see this. This expansion of Government Power was legimized through court precedent, in addition to 'common usage' and 'long-standing prohibitioins' absent any Constitutional basis.
In effect, virtually unlimited power of proper limitation. The limits on government are specific regarding the D.C. law, 'But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home'. as an example. The powers created are not limited, however, and are stated to include licensing of individuals, registration of firearms and regulations as to the types of firearms allowed.
Heller tells us that 'absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home' is unconstitutional. This, I guess would be one of your 'improper limitations' by government, though actually the infringement by government of a limit the Constitution places upon Government. Heller also tells us that the legislative and judicial process can be used to prohibit persons from owning firearms and to prohibit types of firearms from all persons, as you have also stated.
Granted, I have not played with sets and subsets since grammar school, but I am fairly confident that when one removes a sub-set of 1 from an infinite set, the original set remains infinite.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
If one chooses a logical tool, but starts with a false assumption as you are doing, the end result remains in error, regardless of how logical the path.
You have presented no evidence that the one is not a subset of the other, and apparently refuse to use the simplest of logical tools to evaluate your claim, Don. There is nothing else I can add, I guess.
As to the latter, it is curious that you suggest the presentation of an uniformed position and then confirm that it is correct.
You will need to be a bit clearer there in what you are saying.
Legislative and judicial means to resolve an issue, when it is patently obvious that neither the legislative or judicial process in play today in this country have any respect for, nor do they follow Natural Law or God's Law.
But that is a choice, not a logical necessity. Simply because a process can be misused in no way demonstrates that the process cannot be well used. Not everything is a failure, no matter how you feel about it.
One only need read Scalia's tortured path towards legitimacy in Heller to see this. This expansion of Government Power was legimized through court precedent, in addition to 'common usage' and 'long-standing prohibitioins' absent any Constitutional basis.
You have certainly convinced yourself, apparently.
In effect, virtually unlimited power of proper limitation.
I understand what you are saying, but then you are ignoring that proper limitation may not be proper if "unlimited". You are playing fast and loose with the terms, whether intentionally or not. But that does not change the fact that limitations are present in every amendment, not just the ones you feel like recognizing.
The limits on government are specific regarding the D.C. law, 'But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home'. as an example. The powers created are not limited, however, and are stated to include licensing of individuals, registration of firearms and regulations as to the types of firearms allowed.
I did not present the DC law as perfect,but you surely must recognize that DC is a special jurisdictional case.
Heller tells us that 'absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home' is unconstitutional. This, I guess would be one of your 'improper limitations' by government, though actually the infringement by government of a limit the Constitution places upon Government.
To hold that there is an absolute prohibition for all persons in all circumstances in all places and times would certainly be improper limitation, and hence, infringement.
To hold that slaves cannot possess weapons would be the same idea.
To hold that the criminally insane cannot possess arms, however, would not.
I would also limit the possession of firearms among those incarcerated, as well.
I would be real tempted to limit possession to citizens, however, or at least prohibit possession by illegal aliens.
And, nope, I see no rationale for the possession of CBW by individuals, either.
Heller also tells us that the legislative and judicial process can be used to prohibit persons from owning firearms and to prohibit types of firearms from all persons, as you have also stated.
As above.
Granted, I have not played with sets and subsets since grammar school, but I am fairly confident that when one removes a sub-set of 1 from an infinite set, the original set remains infinite.
Not quite sure the importance of that to this discussion, but Venn diagrams are simple and may be googled for further information.
It is as I had assumed. You believe government has the wisdom and ability to properly determine the application of a right absent Constitutional guidance. You accept that common usage, what makes sense, etc. Laws are fleeting, but the law should not be.
You can cease your simple Venn Diagram discussion. I am familiar with the concept and with application. If you seriously believe that a Venn Diagram can be used to logically present the relationship between limitation and infringement, you apparently lack such understanding.
As previously noted, as with any logic tool, you have start with understanding the subject. You believe I do not, I believe you do not. Our circles do not intersect.
Brad Steele
The 'Heller' case findings were wrong. 'WE' don't need a law degree or a black robe to understand either the letter or the spirit of the Bill of Rights. "We the people" are MORE capable than ANY one in government to interrupt the 'law'. There is a very obvious 'conflict of interest' when we allow the government to tell us 'what the law means'!!!![xx(]
The festering wound that is our government is leagues ahead of the ordinary citizens, insofar as "interrupting" the law is concerned.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'Heller' case findings were wrong. 'WE' don't need a law degree or a black robe to understand either the letter or the spirit of the Bill of Rights. "We the people" are MORE capable than ANY one in government to interrupt the 'law'. There is a very obvious 'conflict of interest' when we allow the government to tell us 'what the law means'!!!![xx(]
The festering wound that is our government is leagues ahead of the ordinary citizens, insofar as "interrupting" the law is concerned.
Most of us are 'law abiding' citizens, BUT we MUST start thinking like Rosa Parks and refuse to go to the back of the bus. We MUST do this TOGETHER or it is useless. That is why I try to get those on ALL sides of this issue to stop the in-fighting and realize we must ALL agree no matter how we think it 'should be' it has gone way to far NOW and we must ALL 'draw a line in the sand' and push back collectively or 'resistance is futile'!!!!!!!!!!![V][xx(]